351–360 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being amoral loses its advantage when every other player is similarly feckless.
Your point is that everyone who buys or sells assets is implicitly amoral? That seems a bit extreme though you are not the first to say it. One wonders how you can escape such condemnation yourself. Everything is a marketplace in some sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion is just a ponzi scheme that still underpins most of the world's networks and hierarchies.
Care to elaborate? Or you mean christianity? There are quite a few other religions that are quite nice. Buddhism as practiced in Bhutan comes to mind...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, 11 years after its debut and nearly a trillion in valuation, still ridiculously ignorant statements like "delivers no value". It delivers no value you care about. Many people care about money that can't be inflated, can't be stopped from being traded, and can't be controlled across international borders. Those are hugely valuable to some people, whether you find it valuable or not.
> money With built in and inevitable deflation. Bitcoin could never replace a national currency. With transaction times in the tens of minutes and with a maximal global transaction rate of 5-10 per second. The Blockchain couldn't replace the banking system of single mid-sized town. It's not money. It's at best "digital gold", but more realistically it's just a ponzi scheme.
That is the most grandiose goal a new monetary technology could possibly have. It doesn't need to replace a national currency to be useful/valuable to users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can buy drugs or a hitman online without being traced. Also ransomware can demand payment in Bitcoin without being traced.
Also, I can buy a pizza for a coworker in a different country without worrying about exchange rates or anything else. FYI, everything you said can be done with cold hard cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a socialist (especially labor theory of value) perspective, you're buying and selling people's future labor. Socialists tend to think that the workers should get all of their labor. Obviously "root of all evil" is somewhat hyperbolic, but based on even passing knowledge of socialism, it is easy to see why a socialist might consider it to be an evil game. Per your previous sentences though, a common refrain on /r…
It doesn't make much sense, as owning a stock does not give you any entitlement to the future labor of employees. Also employees can buy stock themselves, which arguably is superior to forcing them to be stakeholders in the company they work for, as it is voluntary. But the labor theory of value also doesn't make sense to begin with (if you disagree, I'd like you to pay me 10000$ to dig a hole in front of your front…
Trading stocks in America is state sponsored gambling. All of the game is based on the assumption that the stocks will (on average) always go up. They dont. Check the European stock markets that have been stagnant for 20 years. Selling lottery tickets with the promise of getting a pension. Disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, 11 years after its debut and nearly a trillion in valuation, still ridiculously ignorant statements like "delivers no value". It delivers no value you care about. Many people care about money that can't be inflated, can't be stopped from being traded, and can't be controlled across international borders. Those are hugely valuable to some people, whether you find it valuable or not.
> money With built in and inevitable deflation. Bitcoin could never replace a national currency. With transaction times in the tens of minutes and with a maximal global transaction rate of 5-10 per second. The Blockchain couldn't replace the banking system of single mid-sized town. It's not money. It's at best "digital gold", but more realistically it's just a ponzi scheme.
> Bitcoin could never replace a national currency.
You can't predict the future.
> With transaction times in the tens of minutes and with a maximal global transaction rate of 5-10 per second. The Blockchain couldn't replace the banking system of single mid-sized town.
With millions of transactions per second, the Lightning network could.
> It's not money.
It's money. Here's an explanation of money https://powreach.com/crypto
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second, the "stock perspective". An investor would ignore the underlying company, but look at the stock itself. It didn't really matter if the company was doing good, but only if the stock itself had good potential. […] > Finally, the "game perspective". An investor would not really care about the stock, but only about the behavior of other investors. Well, momentum investing does give good returns over the market…
It seems like these excess returns are a special case of the general principle that taking on more risk yields higher average rewards at the cost of more volatility. (Compare stocks vs. bonds, for example [0].) Quoting from the third link above: > So it has high excess returns and has worked basically everywhere it has been tested, what’s not to like? As the authors go on to say, this incredible performance is also a…
Yes, but there are times when one takes on extra risks that offer no added reward:
> [Mladina's] findings[0] were surprising. The factor exposure of real estate roughly resembles that of a portfolio consisting of 60% small-cap value stocks and 40% high-yield bonds. This tells us that REITs are not necessarily going to give us something we could not already get by investing in stocks and bonds.
> But there’s more to know. One of the study’s most important findings also suggested that real estate risk is primarily driven by the idiosyncratic risk of the real estate sector. This point is crucial to understanding why REITs might not fit into a portfolio as perfectly as presumed. Put another way, Mladina found that REIT returns were explained by priced risk factors, but real estate risk was primarily driven by the idiosyncratic risk of the real estate sector, which is not a priced risk. That is, it is not a risk that you expect a positive return for taking.
* https://rationalreminder.ca/blog/2019/8/23/reconsidering-rei...
* [0] https://joi.pm-research.com/content/27/1/109
So momentum does have added risk, but one is rewarded for it. Similarly for small-cap: smaller companies are riskier than larger ones, and so a (rational) investor would demand more reward (returns) for investing in such a company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value investor type (buffet etc) would call this speculation, not investing. Speculators control all of the short term movements (everything on a time scale of But the pricing of securities in the market has always regressed to fundamentals in the long arc of history. The value investor types agree with the nasdaq guy, though. All institutional investors (even the pension fund managers!) behave like speculators,…
> But the pricing of securities in the market has always regressed to fundamentals in the long arc of history. I don't doubt this but got any good references?
The reality is that the cash flow and assets underlying these securities were overpriced. In spite of it, institutional investors speculated the price up for years. People thought they had found a way to "cheat" risk, turning fundamentally risky (and therefore, low-value) assets into something more valuable. They were wrong!
Other times, the market is simply too optimistic (dot-com bubble), and attaches large valuations to companies with non-existent cash flows (i.e. little fundamental value). We're arguably in a similar current today, although it's not nearly as bad, imo. The companies that get overblown valuations today at least have revenue, albeit some more legitimately than others (TSLA vs UBER).